I read in this forum that someone who went to NAB considered the image to be "very CineAlta like", and that someone who has been working editing a project shot on Cinealta said the same. Although they agreed that the CineAlta was superior.

My question is: Has anyone seen the footage and tell me how much truth there is in this? Please forget about the technical and mathematical issues, I would really like to talk about perception.

I've been asked to quote a 20 min. documentary on film (16mm) or video (24p SD). I'd really like to consider using HD as an alternative and I'd love to consider using the HD100 for the project since it would cost less than renting and hiring a CineAlta in the United States along with a DP or cameraman and bring them down to Panama. And of course, I would keep the camera.

But before I ruin a production just to keep a camera, is there a way to downconvert 24P PROHD in a way that it would look good in SD? Not as the mediocre downconversion of the Sony HDV?

So why do you want to downconvert to standard definition ? In a global economy countries that dont accept the technology of high definition because they can't afford it will never remain competitive and will always be backward. Developing countries like the Phillipines distribute their movies in high definition because they want to rival Japan as an economic super power. They broadcast worldwide in high definition over the internet.

Developing countries like the Phillipines distribute their movies in high definition because they want to rival Japan as an economic super power. They broadcast worldwide in high definition over the internet.

Tell me when they rival Japan. I thought they broadcast HD worldwide over their satellite network. :-)

Tommy: It is true that this country is far from broadcasting HD and my final output is going to be SD, but consider that they are interested in 16mm or 24P video. So, they don't want to look "interlaced".

I know that the 24P has a very good perceived image (close to 16mm). Because of the higher resolution, it seems kind of obvious that a 24P HDV 720P must render a better looking image than the XL2 and the DVX100A... (after all these are "enhanced definition cameras" and look way better than traditional SD DV cameras) - but for me this is just speculation since I have never seen the footage from the HD100.

I was at NAB and saw the output from the HD100. As you may know,
ALL Manufacturers do "what it takes" to make sure their demos look good.
I would not expect JVC to show poor footage. Sony, from what I heard (rumor),
showed footage from their HDV cam's analog COMPONENT output and NOT
true HDV output from tape.

BUT, that said, the JVC LOOKED GREAT! In addition, IF they come out with
the 100e model, you will have uncompressed SD and HD, though you'll
have to rent a deck to record either of those high bandwidth signals to tape.

is there a way to downconvert 24P PROHD in a way that it would look good in SD? Not as the mediocre downconversion of the Sony HDV?

Most of the difficulty in down-converting the Sony HDV (which does not yield "mediocre" results by any standard) comes from dealing with the interlaced fields. Progressive down-converting is a no-brainer, and should be very easy to do on the any progressive HD source - be it the JVC GY-HD100 or the Sony cameras in the Cineframe modes.

Guys, you're forgetting something. For film out you be upconverting to 1080p. Now which camera will upconvert better to be seen. Probably JVC which probably also has better lens, we don't know for sure. In either case it will be close.

Why would you upconvert to 1080p? That step would instantly reduce the quality of the possible film transfer... it would make more sense to simply adapt the machine that does 1080p-to-film to do 720p-to-film.

How exactly to digital-to-film transfers work, and how possible would this be?